Rowland's motion to suppress Weaver's evidence
Rowland seeks to suppress Weaver exhibits 1017 and 1018.
Rowland failed to attach its objections to its motion to suppress
Weaver's evidence (See Paper 1 at § 48). Accordingly, the motion
is dismissed on that grounds alone.
Even considering Rowland's motion on the merits, the motion
is dismissed as follows. We find it unnecessary to consider the
specific objections to the admissibility of Weaver's exhibits
1017 and 1018, since those exhibits were not considered in
rendering our opinion. Weaver relied on exhibits 1017 and 1018
in support of its argument that Rowland did not actually reduce
the invention to practice by 11 October 1991. Since Rowland
failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that it
had reduced the invention to practice by 11 October 1991, there
was no occasion for us to consider Weaver's argument, and thus
Weaver exhibits 1017 and 1018.
Accordingly, Rowland's motion with respect to Weaver
exhibits 1017 and 1018 is dismissed as moot.
D. Judgment
Based on our decision, it is
ORDERED that judgment as to Count 2 (Paper 64), the sole
count in the interference, is awarded against junior party
CHRISTOPHER A. ROWLAND, MICHAEL G. VERGANO, BRYAN P. EDDY, and
PETER B. COTTON.
27
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007